These are the Words...

Kosher

Definition

Meaning in Ancient Israel

The first is chol, which means "common". It is used to describe an object that is not set apart for God. Most objects are in this category. To say an object is "common" does not imply it is somehow inferior or broken.

In some cases a chol object could be set apart for God, but has not yet been thus dedicated. In other cases a chol object is something that cannot ever be set apart for God.

The opposite of chol is kadosh, which literally means "set apart" but is usually translated "holy", "consecrated", or "sanctified".

An object that has the potential to be set apart for God is called tahor. A reasonable translation would be "ritually potent". Unfortunately, this word is normally translated "clean" even though the concept has nothing to do with dirt or germs.

The opposite of tahor is tamay, describing an object that can never be set apart for God. As before "ritually impotent" is a reasonable translation but most Bibles use "unclean".

The ancient Israelites only ate foods that scripture described or listed as tahor (ritually potent) in Leviticus 11. The view was that the ancient Israelites lived as people set apart for God, and eating something tamay would ruin this ritual state. If they ate (or even touched) something tamay, such as something that was not supposed to be food for them, they would become "common" until an offering at the Tabernacle made them set apart again.

According to scripture, all vegetables are tahor. The issue of what edible material counts as "food" is limited to types of meat. Thus scripture speaks of certain animals being tahor or tamay when it more specifically means meat obtained from that animal.

Meaning in the First Century

In Greek, "common" is koinon. This word literally meant "common", and is used in the phrase "shared in common" in Acts 2:44 and 4:43, Titus 1:4, and Jude 1:3.

The Greek word for "set apart" is hagios, which literally meant "consecrated".

Since ancient Greek had no concept of "ritually potent", the authors of scripture used words referring to a different concept. The opposites ekatharizen vs. akatharton, literally "pruned/purged" vs. "unpruned/unpurged", were borrowed and used to refer to tahor vs. tamay.

However, in the first century the issue was no longer to simply eat only tahor meats.

In the Roman Empire of the first century, much of the meat sold in a marketplace had been previously used as part of pagan idol worship. As part of their effort to avoid idolatry, the Jewish people would avoid using this meat even if it was from a tahor animal.

A concept was needed to refer to meat that was not only legitimate food (tahor) but had not been tainted by pagan idolatry. Unfortunately, the idea that developed was that proper food was "set apart" (kadosh).

Scripture never describes any type of food as "set apart" unless it had been specifically involved in a Tabernacle offering. When the Jewish people began to improperly think of their food as "set apart" they made their minds open to all sorts of prejudice. They soon considered "common" any food eaten with unwashed hands or any food in a Gentile's home, as well as food of dubious religious history.

This prejudice then extended to people. The Jews of the first century had scriptural reason to call most Gentiles chol (not set apart for God); this was no insult, and the pagan Gentiles would have agreed. But these Jews grew to also consider Gentiles tamay (ritually impotent), by nature of their ethnicity unable to follow God and among the category of things that could not be touched without disrupting a life set apart for God.

Clearly God could not allow his people to retain such prejudice. He needed to teach them that food (that was not actually involved in a Temple offering) was not holy, and that no people were ritually impotent.

Yeshua did teach these truths. Because the prejudice was so deeply rooted God had to teach them again to Peter. Paul also had to teach them.

In the passages below the translations have been worded to carefully reflect the actual Greek words, as explained above.

First, Yeshua's teaching:

"There is nothing outside a person which, by going into him, can make him common. Rather, it is things that come out of a person which make a person common." -Mark 7:15

In other words, what we touch or eat cannot make us less set apart or God. Matthew 15:11 is very similar.

"Don't you see that nothing going into a person from outside can make him common? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and it passes out into the latrine." (Thus he declared all foods ritually potent.) "It is what comes out a person that makes him common. For from within, from out of a person's heart, come forth wicked thoughts...all these wicked things come from within and they make a person common." -Mark 7:18b-23

Note that the Greek word used for "food" in this passage always refers to kosher food, the only material Yeshua's listeners would have considered food. Yeshua is declaring that nothing done to legitimate food can contaminate it. He is not teaching that "all things are food".

Similarly, nothing outside of us can threaten how we are set apart for God through Yeshua. Only vices that come out of a believer can make the believer common and in need of repentance (Psalm 66:18 agrees: if I see iniquity in my heart then Adonai will not hear me).

Matthew 15:17-20 is related but lacks the parenthetical statement and refers at the end to hand washing.

Next, what Peter learns from God:

But Peter said, "No sir! By no means! I have never eaten food that was common or ritually impotent." The voice spoke to him a second time: "Stop treating as common what God has made ritually potent". -Acts 10:14-15

Notice that Peter is sharing the Jewish prejudice of his day: in his mind there is common/holy food as well as ritually potent/impotent meat.

Also notice that God is not telling Peter that all people are now made "set apart". People must follow Yeshua to be fully set apart for God. God is saying that all people have this option.

"But God has shown me not to call any person common or ritually impotent." -Acts 10:28b

What did Peter learn? Yeshua's sacrifice and covenant mean that no ethnicity is inherently common (unholy), and people cannot be ritually impotent (cut off from God, unable to repent). God wants everyone of all ethnicities to become set apart for him. How a believer is set apart for God is not compromised if they touch an irreligious person.

I said, "No sir! By no means! Nothing common or ritually impotent has ever entered my mouth." But the voice spoke again from heaven: "Stop treating as common what God has made ritually potent". -Acts 11:8-9

When Peter retells his story he uses our vocabulary words in exactly the same way as in verses 10:14-15.

Finally, Paul's teaching:

I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Yeshua, that nothing is common of itself: but to him who esteems any thing to be common, to him it is common. For if because of food your brother is grieved, you walk no longer in love. Destroy not with your food him for whom Messiah died... Overthrow not for food's sake the work of God. All things indeed are ritually potent; but it is evil for a man who eats to cause offence. -Romans 14:14-15, 20

The last sentence could possibly be declaring non-kosher material legitimate as food (ritually potent), but this is not likely. Such a teaching would go against everything else in scripture, as well as every other use of the Greek word here translated "food", which always refers to only tahor foods.

Also, the context of the chapter shows that the phrase "all things" is used within a debate of whether to eat any tahor meat or to avoid any possibility of eating meat tainted by pagan idolatry by becoming a vegetarian.

Paul is most likely restating what Yeshua taught, that nothing done to legitimate food can contaminate it. There is no reason to claim he is abolishing the scriptural category of tahor vs. tamay meats.

However, this interpretation of Romans 14:20 does not mean that Paul would be opposed to eating tamay meat if necessary to spread the Good News. Apparently Paul approved of Peter having done so at least on occasion (Galatians 2:14) and was willing to do so himself (First Corinthians 6:12, 9:21). In other words, the issue of prioritizing outreach over dietary laws was not part of Romans 14 but is addressed elsewhere.

Meaning for Messianic Jews in Modern Times

In order to be "kosher", food must not only be of the scripturally tahor types but also must be prepared according to Rabbinic guidelines. A more specific definition is not universally possible because the Rabbinic guidelines have variations based on geography and branch of Judaism. Wikipedia's article on kashrut is a good overview of what constitutes Rabbinically kosher.

Messianic Jews who are of Jewish lineage, and thus participants in the Sinai/Moav covenant, usually follow only the scriptural regulations about tahor food. (They often say they keep "scripturally kosher" even though scripture does not use that word.) Some keep Rabbinically kosher. Some do neither. This is an issue worth praying about.

As Acts 15 and Paul's writings make clear, Gentile believers need not follow these scriptural dietary laws. Acts 15:29 only requires Gentile believers to avoid eating blood (as per the Noachide covenant of Genesis 9:1-17).

As with Shabbat, many Gentile believers in Messianic Jewish communities voluntarily follow the scriptural regulations about tahor food and claim to experience blessing through doing so.

Zechariah 14:20-21 and Revelation 21:27 imply that in the millennial reign and the World to Come all people will follow the scriptural dietary rules, since then everything will be tahor.